Reddit lawyers tell movie studios to take a hike after they demanded to identify users

Cal Jeffrey

Posts: 4,178   +1,424
Staff member
A hot potato: Lawyers litigating a movie piracy case have demanded the identities of nine Reddit users who "might" have discussed piracy on the platform. Reddit turned over some of the information on one (or two) of the users that seemed to be engaging in a "how-to" discussion on bootlegging movies; the plaintiffs want all of the users exposed. Reddit says, "No. We'll see you in court."

On Tuesday, Reddit filed legal paperwork with the Northern District Court of California refusing to unmask users in response to a motion to compel submitted last week. The legal jousting stems from a lawsuit between movie studios and Astound Broadband (formerly RCN) over piracy.

Background: In 2021, Bodyguard Productions, Millennium Media, and several other film studios filed a lawsuit in a New Jersey federal court against RCN. The suit claims that RCN knowingly allowed its customers to illegally download 34 copyrighted movies, including Hellboy, Rambo V: Last Blood, and others.

The studios subpoenaed Reddit to turn over the "IP address registration and logs from 1/1/2016 to present, name, email address, and other account registration information" of nine Redditors. Its general basis for wanting the information was that it believed these users were involved with pirating movies through RCN because they had engaged in discussions on the subject.

After looking into the accounts, Reddit released some information on at least one user but said the rest were unrelated to the lawsuit. Its legal counsel claimed that the subpoena amounted to a "fishing expedition" and that Reddit would not violate users' First Amendment rights without solid evidence of their relevance to the case.

So last week, the plaintiffs filed a motion to compel with a California federal court. On Tuesday, Reddit's legal team responded with an opposition filing. In it, Reddit points out that the posts of the users in question are "completely irrelevant" to the lawsuit under litigation.

"Four of the seven users at issue do not appear to have ever even mentioned RCN, based on the evidence offered by Plaintiffs. They merely refer to 'my provider' or 'our ISP.' And those references are all made in a discussion about Comcast, not RCN. Two of the three remaining users did mention RCN but were discussing issues (such as their customer service experience) unrelated to copyright infringement or Plaintiffs' allegations. And the final user vaguely mentioned RCN arguably in the context of copyright infringement once nine years ago, well beyond any arguably relevant timeframe for Plaintiffs' allegations."

Reddit's legal team also asserted that the plaintiffs' claim that these users were "very likely" referring to RCN is speculative, and the court should reject the argument.

"A single RCN competitor, Comcast, has more than thirty times RCN's market share," Reddit's rebuttal reads. "This context is important to understanding just how absurd it is for Plaintiffs to suggest that any mention of an unnamed ISP in a discussion about Comcast is 'very likely' discussing RCN. It's akin to suggesting that whenever a user mentions a 'car' on a Reddit discussion about Ford, they are 'very likely' talking about an Alfa Romeo."

Reddit also maintains that the information the plaintiffs are fishing for could be more readily and accurately compelled from the defendant, RCN, during discovery. The platform's lawyers claim that the court should not force their client to unmask its customers based on the plaintiffs' "wild guesses about which Reddit users might be RCN customers or might have engaged in copyright infringement at some point in the last decade."

Throughout Reddit's rebuttal, the legal team references several instances of case precedence that set a legal bar the studios fail to meet in their argument. Courts have already affirmed that the First Amendment covers online anonymity. They have also established that litigants cannot unmask users who have nothing to do with the lawsuit unless a "compelling need" outweighs the user's First Amendment rights, citing Rich v. Butowsky and Doe v. 2TheMart.com.

Lawyers for both sides are set to argue the motion in the Northern District Court of California in San Francisco on March 23.

Image credit: Nick Youngson

Permalink to story.

 
Bureaucracy and filing fee per person in my country (NZ) - that no one has been chased for personal downloading for a longtime.
I only have one reddit account -I rarely post , occasionally uptick = but my history is completely harmless.
All heavy users know about burner accounts - or separate harder to track for dodgy stuff NSFW etc .
Apparently it's only an email you need - no phone number.
Someone has been fed BS ths is a good idea - pick up easier low hanging fruit - then everyone gets smarter and back better than ever - even low hanging fruit with a good lawyer would likely go no where
 
@Cal Jeffrey @Julio Franco
Can we please stop the automatic download JS trigger? I'm referring to the PDF court document. It is and has always been wildly inappropriate!
I only see the embed (on an iframe). Stock browser behavior is to show the PDF embedded with no prompt (tried 4 different browsers), so maybe you're seeing something else because of an extension or security setting?
 
I only see the embed (on an iframe). Stock browser behavior is to show the PDF embedded with no prompt (tried 4 different browsers), so maybe you're seeing something else because of an extension or security setting?

If your forum configuration allowed attachments (Xenforo is very configurable and attachments being disabled is not a default option), I'd be happy to show a screenshot showing the popup for the download. So perhaps you should stop embedding document/PDF links in an iframe and simply put the link at the bottom of the article in an html text link.

EDIT: Check your email, screenshot attached.
 
Last edited:
The court document is a public record.
ok so the court doxxed these people, how is that legal? I mean if it was kept in the police documents it would be fine, but letting that out into the wild is pretty dangerous, especialy when it comes to reddit lol
 
ok so the court doxxed these people, how is that legal? I mean if it was kept in the police documents it would be fine, but letting that out into the wild is pretty dangerous, especialy when it comes to reddit lol
I'm not sure if you understand how this works. It seems pretty clear from the article. This document was submitted by the respondents (that is, the attorneys on behalf of the respondents). The court merely received it and once accepted by the court it becomes public record. The court itself does not generate the pleading.

In other words, Reddit is the respondent and is replying to the suit filed by the plaintiffs, the movie studios. Also, this is a civil case and not a criminal case. The police are not parties to the action. Reread the article and see if your concerns are answered.
 
I'm not sure if you understand how this works. It seems pretty clear from the article. This document was submitted by the respondents (that is, the attorneys on behalf of the respondents). The court merely received it and once accepted by the court it becomes public record. The court itself does not generate the pleading.

In other words, Reddit is the respondent and is replying to the suit filed by the plaintiffs, the movie studios. Also, this is a civil case and not a criminal case. The police are not parties to the action. Reread the article and see if your concerns are answered.
im not certified opr qualified enough to talk about this tbh
I just thought it was weird for people to see your home adress instead of people actualy involved with the case only
 
The movie studio's can't protect their products, charge a ridicules price for them, threaten anyone and everyone for all sorts of reasons and THEN want people to respect them and their self proclaimed rights? I still haven't stopped laughing ......
 
The movie studio's can't protect their products, charge a ridicules price for them, threaten anyone and everyone for all sorts of reasons and THEN want people to respect them and their self proclaimed rights? I still haven't stopped laughing ......
Hypocrites are as capable as expressing truths as anyone else.

How frequently and effectively they express them are other matters.

Everyone is a hypocrite to some degree. It's impossible to be pure in a world that's founded on unfairness. That starts with physics/nature, which doesn't give everyone a fair shake, too.
 
Threatening or opening a civil case can be a bluff in hopes the other party relents (too much time or money to fight it). Last century I called up a software vendor and asked about a missing feature they had promised in their most recent release. Their response? Microsoft had threatened to sue them over the feature and they said their small businesses couldn’t afford the time or money to fight what they felt was just an attempt to slow down or suppress competition. It’s all a game that has to be played out.
 
Yeah, that auto-download is still happening... Gonna fix it? Or do you care?

By the way, the reason an auto-download is being triggered is because you have the PDF setup to display. Not all browsers(or browser configs) allow for the opening of a PDF in-page so instead it triggers a download.

So could please shut it off? It's both irritating and a potential security hazard.
 
Last edited:
Back